Last year, it was announced that billionaire George Soros gave his first ever contribution to Media Matters, an organization that puts a specific emphasis on criticizing the Fox News Channel. Now we may know the reason why Soros has made this donation public.

On Sunday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN, Soros took a few shots at the Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of parent company NewsCorp, accusing the media mogul of using Fox News and his media empire to change the direction of government. He reacted to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck’s assertion that there is a “shadow government” with puppets and puppet masters, and Soros is pulling the strings.

“Well, I would be amused if people saw the joke in it, because what he is doing, he is projecting what Fox — what Rupert Murdoch is doing, because he has a media empire that is telling the people some falsehoods and mis — and leading the government in the wrong direction,” Soros said. “But, you know, by accusing me of doing that, it’s kind of — it makes it rather hard to see that it’s really — he is working for the man who is doing it which is Fox News.”

Today, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a young Viennese mother, was convicted under section 283 of the Austrian penal code of vilifying religious teachings for her negative commentary on Islam in a lecture before a political-party gathering in Vienna; she was fined 480 Euros. Sabaditsch-Wolff, a diplomat’s daughter, had lived and worked for several years in various Middle Eastern Muslim countries, and at the lecture in question spoke critically of the treatment of women and the practice of jihad in Iran, Libya, and other places that she had lived in.

Frau Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case came up while I was off with various health issues, but I said a few words about it when I was in Ottawa. This was Austria’s contribution to the hottest trend on the Continent — heresy trials. Officially, Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff and Geert Wilders and Lars Hedegaard are in the dock as heretics against post-Christian Europe’s new religion of “multiculturalism”. But that’s just a transitional stage. As I wrote of the Wilders trial:

The good news is that the Openbaar Ministerie is doing such a grand job with its pilot program of apostasy prosecutions you’ll barely notice when sharia is formally adopted.

Elisabeth’s case attracted less attention than most of the others. In a follow-up, Nina Shea speculated as to why that might be:

This is probably due to the fact that she is an ordinary person and not an acclaimed writer, politician, or celebrity (think Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, and Brigitte Bardot) — the most prominent examples of the growing ranks of Western Europeans and Canadians who have faced legal problems for criticizing Islamic teachings.

I think it’s also that Austria does not resonate in the imagination as a beacon of individual liberty in the way that the anglophone democracies and certain Continental countries do — or did. Nevertheless, this is a very dark decision. If Lars Hedegaard was acquitted on a technicality, Mrs Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted on one. See if you can follow the judge’s “thinking”:

The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred…

The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding muhammad and paedophilia were punishable.

“Paedophilia” is factually incorrect, since paedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. Nevertheless, it does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18. It is a “denigration of religious teachings” and are found guilty and sentenced to 120 days, which approaches the minimum of €480.

So, although Mohammed deflowered Aisha when she was nine, it is “factually incorrect” to call him a pedophile because he was still hot for her when she was in her late teens? As a point of law, it’s not where you start, it’s where you finish — and you’re gonna finish on top! Does this judicial ruling apply to all Austrians partial to a piece of underage totty? For example, Wolfgang Priklopil:

The Austrian girl who was kidnapped at the age of ten and imprisoned for eight years in a dungeon-like basement room by a pedophile predator who committed suicide when she escaped last week…

Whoa, whoa, hold up there. How can you say Herr Priklopil was a “pedophile” when he was still having sex with her when she was 18? And so were all his friends:…

“Freedom of expression is always the freedom to allow those opinions which are diametrically opposed to our own, or it is not freedom of expression.”

Last Tuesday’s decision by the Vienna court did not go unremarked by the Austrian press. And not all coverage and opinion was politically correct: the following take by Christian Ortner on the Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff case is incisive and refreshingly candid.

With courage and determination, the Egyptians have finally fought for and won the right to express their opinion free of state repression. In Austria, we have not come that far.

For hundreds of years the Islamic world had sighed for this moment. Millions of pious Muslims had to linger in awful uncertainty. Even the cleverest scholars could never agree on a universally agreed solution. But on Monday of this week, it was at that point.

The verdict of the Criminal Court in Vienna has finally settled the hotly disputed question of whether the Prophet Mohammed slept with his wife Aisha when she was at the tender age of nine, as many sources maintain. And so a Viennese judge, until now comparatively unknown among Koran experts, has decided as — so to speak — the highest authority on the faith from Morocco to Indonesia, that in any case there was no instance of pedophilia in the House of Mohammed. And therefore sentenced the defendant to 120 per diem payments for her public claim that the Prophet “liked to get it on with children.” Because the charge that Mohammed committed child abuse was “factually completely unjustified.” Ergo, “denigration of a religion” — end of lesson.

Quite aside from the weird presumption of wishing to clarify in the Viennese court a circa 1500-year-old Arabic bedroom tale — such a verdict (and the law on which is its based) is more suited to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran than an allegedly liberal and secular constitutional state. To be convicted for quoting analogously what is an article of faith in a great part of the Islamic world, seems more like the verdict of a sharia court than a verdict “in the name of the Republic.”

Perhaps in the future, we should concern ourselves not only with the question of whether there will be freedom of expression in Egypt, but also how we here in Austria can achieve this freedom of expression, without having to occupy Stephansplatz for days on end to accomplish it. To be clear: laws that offer heightened protection of only one group of religious communities from too robust criticism are really not compatible with the principle of freedom of expression.

The relevant § 188 of the criminal code protrudes into the 21st century from pre-modern times like the laws of the Habsburgs or the ban on denigrating the parliament. Such a norm of conduct is not in tune with the times. In a secular state, consideration of the possible religious feelings of one’s fellow human beings is a question of respect and honor which requires no regulation by the state.

As chance would have it, at almost the same time as the Viennese verdict, “Valley of the Wolves” was running in the cinemas — a Turkish macho epic with heavily anti-Semitic tendencies. The Jewish community justifiably complained about this vicious film. Nonetheless, the consequence of that cannot be that such a film is forbidden by decree of the grand vizier.

Freedom of expression is always the freedom to allow those opinions which are diametrically opposed to our own, or it is not freedom of expression. If we allow judges to rule on which opinions may be represented and which may not, then we should be less fearful of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood than of our own understanding of freedom.”

If You Don’t hurt her you’re disrespecting her,

Or Are you?

Abraham Schwartz

The Iowa state wrestling tournament usually takes place without much fanfare, as its teenage contestants wrestle for the chance to be crowned best in state. The competition’s obscurity was lost this past week, its humble existence thrust into the intruding glare of the national spotlight. What could be so intriguing about a high school wrestling tournament, you ask? Well, here’s a little background.

Sixteen- year old Joel Northrup boasted a 35-4 record, and was ranked fifth in the state when he was told who his next opponent would be. In order to advance his dreams of winning the Iowa state title Joel would have to beat Cassy Herkelman, a fourteen year old girl.

Cassy, a Cedar Falls freshman, was not new to fighting against boys. She had already amassed an impressive twenty victories in her young wrestling career, all against boys.

Their anticipated match was scheduled to take place this past Thursday, but Joel had other plans. Stating that “wrestling is a combat sport (that) can get violent at times”, Northrup came to the conclusion that “As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner.” Sounds like a well-mannered kid, the type of guy you’d want to date your daughter, right? Well not everyone finds this gallant gesture praiseworthy.

Enter Rick Reilly, the critically acclaimed, award winning columnist for ESPN. In his latest article Reilly delves into the sixteen-year olds decision not to engage in violent sport with a girl.

Reilly writes “Does any wrong-headed decision suddenly become right when defended with religious conviction? In this age, don’t we know better?’.

So Reilly isn’t very impressed with Northrup’s “wrong-headed decision” to decline fighting a girl. He continues, “If the Northrups really wanted to “respect” women, they should’ve encouraged their son to face her.”

This sentiment projected by Reilly is an indicator of how distorted the argument over gender equality has become. Since when is hitting a girl deemed ok, when did the forum of wrestling pardon such an act?

When a male teenager is told to wrestle a girl, to get into a secluded area with her and strive for one thing and one thing only; to hurt her, to bruise her, to cause her pain until it is clear that he has “won”, well, that is the kind of win that should be respectfully declined. It is an accolade that defies respect, a trophy that has lost its luster.

If it is morally correct to advocate the beating of woman in a monitored setting, what makes one think that the feelings incurred during that “event” will wither away and die. What could make a person so sure that they won’t carry over into real life, into relationships and friendships? Once a barrier is broken it is broken forever. An individual cannot pick and choose what human emotions will come out of such an occurrence.

Physical domestic abuse stems from a man not understanding or empathizing with the uniqueness of a woman. She is just another “dude” who got out of line. If he truly understood the nature of a woman and the respect that she should be accorded, then striking her would be viewed as an inviolable sin, a transgression of inconceivable consequence. Wrestling with a woman would no doubt have a negative psychological impact on a man in terms of the way he views and deals with women.

And since when is politesse a “religious” virtue? Does Atheism advocate disrespecting women?

Yes, a woman is equipped with equal rights, and yes, she is no lesser a human being in any capacity than one from the opposite sex. However, to advocate physical sparring between a man and woman is a different subject entirely.

When going out on dates women are taken out by men (not vice-versa), they are to be treated more delicately, dealt with in a softer manner than the rugged one that is usually reserved for guys. In such an instance they should not be treated as equals but rather better than equals, shown more respect and sensitivity.

The most philosophically encompassing line of his article, and thus the most disturbing, is when Reilly writes, “In this age, don’t we know better?” Herein lies the problem. Society has become so tolerant that we have now come to the point where immorality is not only accepted under the pretence of open-mindedness; it is also condoned and encouraged. This “age” is slowly but surely eroding basic values which were once considered sacrosanct, but have now been decried as being outdated and old fashioned.

Is chivalry dead yet? It’s definitely dying. But there is no doubt that events of this nature (males wrestling females) would accelerate its demise.

Reilly graces us with another tidbit in an apparent effort to further deride the boy’s “wrong” decision. “She relishes the violence”, he writes, “Body slams and takedowns and gouges in the eye and elbows in the ribs are exactly how to respect Cassy Herkelman. This is what she lives for. She can elevate herself, thanks.”

No one is questioning the physical stability or self sufficiency of Cassy, Mr. Reilly. The issue that you fail to address is the effect it will have on Joel Northrup, and all those present. Just because a girl says “hit me” doesn’t mean that one should oblige her. Cassy may be different than most girls but that doesn’t change the fact that she is a girl. Hurting her physically would instill in Joel Northrup a predisposition of violence towards women.

And what about all the young children that would be privy to watching such a spectacle? Would they in their youthful innocence be able to differentiate between wrestling and real life, or would they walk away endowed with the harmful “knowledge” that men and women are to be treated in the same manner even when concerning using physical force?

Joel Northrup should be lauded for his decision; it should be hailed as a brave act based upon strong ethical values. He did not succumb to the same peer pressure that others before him had. He rose above it and sacrificed his dream of winning the title due to his beliefs. Acts of such merit are becoming fewer and fewer these days, and when they do occur we should adequately commend those responsible for sticking with their value system.

Sadly though Reilly and others cannot appreciate the retaining of moral values in a society that is morally regressing.

Comment: Sorry about that extra word in the title. I was hoping to attract some thinking females to read the above article. Most thinking human females happen to be conservatives and would not take offense. The condition seems to accompany ‘maturing’.

It is difficult to know which Leftwing concocted movement has done more damage to American society, its creation of the inner city black plantation culture of hate toward conservative whiteys, or the insanity of the poisonous feminazi movement. Both mental disorders developed by the nation’s Democrat Party, are still alive and well from the indoctrinations by the doctors and doctoresses of the America’s universities’ Departments of Black Studies, and Women’s Studies.

The following was found at the Tatler at Pajamas Media, collected by Charlie Martin. Be sure to click on for the videos of Doctors handing out phony scripts lying pretending the AWOL Teachers are ILL.

“I grew up in a Democrat/Union machine town; I used to be more or less inured to these things. I find I am no longer. I’m doubly angry now that mobs have forced the legislature to evacuate the Capitol in Madison, for fear of the peril the mobs represented.

One of Glenn’s commenters notes:

I’m a physician. I take care of patients. Yes indeed, if I were to give a doctor’s note to someone without conducting a proper medical evaluation (however brief), I’d be guilty of improper behavior and ethics and could be brought before the medical licensing board.

However, there’s another name for this: FRAUD. The teachers will use these notes to justify their absences and collect their pay. Both the doctors and the teachers are perpetrating a fraud.

Wonder if the Wisconsin attorney general could be motivated to look into that? At the very least, demand that any teacher turning in a doctor’s note over this work action also turn over the record of the medical ‘evaluation’. That would put a stop to this real quick.

That aside, I think the lines are being clearly drawn here: the public employee unions, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, have decided they have an unlimited right to our purses and property, and intend to use thuggery to preserve what they lost in the election. And this cannot be tolerated.

Some of my friends say, in horror, that this is “union busting”. I disagree, and even Politifact backs me up. But I say, if this is union busting, it’s time we made the most of it.”

The Democrat National Committee, President Obama and the Organizing for America all at the national level have managed to bring numbers to Madison, Wisconsin to create enough mob pressure to force Governor Scott Walker to back down from pushing legislation to reduce some powers now held by the public sector unions in Wisconsin. John Hinderaker at PowerLine writes about the bill highlights which have sent State Democratic Senators to scatter and hide somewhere out of state while labor mobs mob the state capitol. The article is titled: “The Wisconsin Bill: What Does It Do?”

“News coverage of the dramatic events we have witnessed in Wisconsin over the past week has typically been heavy on generalities–Governor Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin’s legislature are pushing legislation that is “anti-union” or will “limit the public sector unions’ collective bargaining powers”–but short on details. Tim Phillips of Americans For Prosperity sends this handy summary of the Republican legislation:

– Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions – still less than private employees pay for their pensions

– Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums – the national average for the private sector is over 20%

– End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.

– End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

– Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union.

Are those significant reforms? Absolutely. Hence the desperation on the Left to frustrate them. But in talking about what is at stake, it is helpful to be concrete about what the legislation would actually do.

Former senior adviser to President George Bush, Karl Rove, joins us. Good evening, Karl. And The Washington Post reports that Organizing for America, which is the political arm for the president’s political operation, got involved after the DNC chair, Tim Kaine, spoke to union leaders in Madison. Any problem with that?

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER BUSH SENIOR ADVISER: Yes, I think it’s unusual. Why is the President of the United States using his own personal political arm to try and muscle the Republican governor of Wisconsin on a local issue? And could they also be encouraging — look, Wisconsin state law prohibits teachers from having these kind of strikes. It prohibits state employees from walking off their jobs without permission. And their contracts do, as well. And yet we’ve seen for the last several days the state capitol is filled with teachers and filled with state government employees who have walked off their jobs. This is in violation of state law and it’s in violation of their collective bargaining agreements with either the state or with their local school district.

So is the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America, which has been providing buses, making phone calls, organizing the protests — have they been, in essence, facilitating people breaking the law? And I just think this is amazing! I mean, it’s, like, you know, what is the president of the United States doing muscling — trying to muscle the state legislature in Wisconsin and the governor through using the Democratic National Committee and its own political arm, Organizing for America, to try and get an outcome that he wants to benefit the labor movement?

I mean, I know Gerald McEntee, the head of AFSCME, the union that represents state and local government employees, said that if Wisconsin was able to succeed at this, it would place at risk the $400 million that the unions are likely to spend on Obama’s behalf in 2012. But is that a good enough reason to go about doing this?

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, it’s sort of interesting. I wondered and I went back a little bit in history. I had some research done to see in the 2003 Texas redistricting, when some Texas lawmakers, Republicans, did essentially the same thing, went to another state — I went to see if – – I went back to try to see if I could see what President Bush said then. And actually, to — President Bush, from the statements that were said — he was asked about it, but he said, I get blamed for a lot of things, but I wasn’t going to get involved in it. And he said that it was a local matter. So he — in a similar situation, he stayed out of it. But you know, it’s sort of interesting that President Obama gets involved in this. And I wonder if it’s in part because he won by 14 points in 2008, and now it’s such a — it’s such a different state than 2008. I wonder if he worries about losing Wisconsin and is trying to build up his capital there?

ROVE: Well, absolutely. Look, the Republicans took both houses of the legislature, took the governorship, elected two Republicans, defeating Democrats, including one incumbent, and then in a huge upset, defeated Senator Feingold, Ron Johnson, a political neophyte, took him out.

And yes, as you know — you know Wisconsin better than I do. Wisconsin voters are notoriously independent. And President Obama could no more count on them in 2012 just simply because he won in 2008. But again, here’s the — you know, here’s the thing. What is the Democratic National Committee and the president’s own political arm, his own political organization, doing messing around in this issue? You know, what great national issue is at stake here that requires the president of the United States to use political capital and his police muscle for what is essentially a state issue?

Doesn’t that make you — it makes me feel queasy that a president of the United States would be intruding into a state’s affairs this way, just like he did on the Arizona issue last year, just as he did when he, you know, started making comments about the Cambridge police when they arrested a professor friend of his at Harvard. I mean, this is — this is a little bit — you know, the president ought to tend to his business and let other people tend to theirs.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, as long as it’s not unlawful. And I don’t think it’s unlawful. I mean, it seems…

ROVE: Well…

VAN SUSTEREN: There seems to be a political thread through this because, look, I mean, his — if the unions get shot down by the governor in the state of Wisconsin, then next is Ohio. And you know, you lose those two states, and you are really — you really got problems going into 2012. So assuming that there’s nothing improper that way, he’s got to keep these unions happy. And he’s got to win this issue in Wisconsin or he’s going to have big troubles next in Ohio.

ROVE: Well, you said it — you know, you touched on the question of legality. Is it legal for the Democratic National Committee to be encouraging and facilitating teachers calling in sick, which is a lie, in order to attend a protest? They are violating their contract. Is that tortuous interference with the contract that exists between a local school district and the teachers?

I mean, the Madison — the Madison school district shut down because more than half of the nearly 4,000 teachers called in sick. Is it tortuous interference with a contract that exists between the state government and state employees if the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America are helping facilitate state workers walking off of their responsibilities in order to camp out in the rotunda of the state capitol and protest this action?

I mean, it strikes me that there is a question of legality here. There’s certainly a question of appropriateness. And it’s highly inappropriate. And I suspect it may be illegal. It’s certainly illegal for these teachers to be calling in sick when they really are not sick and really are attending a protest. Same for state employees.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well…

ROVE: And we’re likely to see some sanctions against some of these employees and teacher as a result of this.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I think we’re going to get the answer in the next segment, so you should stick around because that’s one of the questions I have, Karl, whether it is lawful or not lawful. And a judge tonight ruled that it wasn’t a strike but a work stoppage. I don’t know what the differences with that is, but I’ll find out from a lawyer, a labor lawyer in Wisconsin, coming up next. Karl, thank you.